"Backup" Domain Controller or balancing work between servers

  • Thread starter Thread starter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Joan_Jes=FAs_Pujol_Espinar?=
  • Start date Start date
?

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Joan_Jes=FAs_Pujol_Espinar?=

Hello,

I know that with W2K/W3K there aren't Backup domains, all the DCs
servers are equal. Also I know that with sites you can configure the
replication process between DCs.

But I haven't found info about how to balance the work among servers.
And if we have two DCs I don't know what will do the work or how the
work will be will be distributed.

What we want to do is configure two DC servers. But we want that one do
all the work, and the other works only if the first is down (The other
will work mainly as a terminal services server).
There is some way to configure where the work is assigned when there are
multiple DCs?

ExtraInfo:
All the DCs are in the same subnet.
We have the data (profiles, home of users,...) in a NAS.
 
Why? IMHO, the whole point to having multiple DC's is to load balance the DC
activity as well as provide backup in the case of one going down...
 
Hank Arnold escribió:
Why? IMHO, the whole point to having multiple DC's is to load balance the DC
activity as well as provide backup in the case of one going down...
Click to expand...
Yes, but we don't need, neither want load balance between the servers
(one server is enough for our machines). The second server is mainly for
terminal server and we don't want to charge it if the first is working.
However we want the "backup" functionality for redundancy purposes.

Cheers,
 
Joan,

Look at the SRV records. There are two key parts: weight and priority.
Modifying either or both of these ought to give you what you want. You
might want to look for how pcs find 'resources'. There are two MSKB
Articles that will help you:

http://support.microsoft.com/?id=247811
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=314861

But, I am not sure why you would want to do this. There are reasons for
doing this - you just have not stated why other than you want the second DC
to be used mostly for Terminal Services ( er, really a horrible idea to be
running TS on a Domain Controller....if you had a Member Server that would
have been a much better choice...but you can not always spring for a third
server.... ).

If you were able to give us some more details ( number of computer account
objects, number of users.... ) we might be able to better guide you.

--
Cary W. Shultz
Roanoke, VA 24014
Microsoft Active Directory MVP

http://www.activedirectory-win2000.com
http://www.grouppolicy-win2000.com
 
Thanks, Cary. I was about to go into a diatribe about not running TS in
application mode on a DC.

Think of it this way, Joan: The money you save by not getting another box as
a DC will be completely lost when your domain is hosed by a TS user. You
want to implement TS to drop your TCO through both maintenance reduction and
a drop in the hardware needed on the client end. This is not the case when
you put TS on a DC because of the risk involved and the high level of
administration that will go into securing the AD from your TS users.

The cost of downtime and troubleshooting time on the end of your technicians
will outstrip the cost of a new server. A low-end 1U dell server WITH the
server 2003 license is under $2000. Think about how much downtime that is
for your organization... including the real cost of a technician to repair
the problem.
 
You should buy a low end server (even a decent workstation will work) and
set it up as your second DC. It's a very bad idea to have a DC doing
*anything* other than working as a DC....
 
Back
Top